That on or about May 17, 1996 in the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court accused Virginia (Baby) P. Montaner did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud one Reynaldo Solis in the following manner: said accused by means of false pretenses and fraudulent acts that her checks are fully funded draw, make and issue in favor of one Reynaldo Solis the following Prudential Bank Checks Nos.:
- 0002284 P5,000.00
- 0002285 P5,000.00
- 0002286 P5,000.00
- 0002287 P5,000.00
- 0002288 P5,000.00
- 0002289 P5,000.00
- 0002290 P5,000.00
- 0002291 P5,000.00
- 0002292 P5,000.00
- 0002293 P5,000.00
all having a total value of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) and all aforesaid checks are postdated June 17, 1996 in exchange for cash knowing fully well that she has no funds in the drawee bank and when the said checks were presented for payment the same were dishonored by the drawee bank on reason of "ACCOUNT CLOSED" and despite demand accused failed and refused to pay the value thereof to the damage and prejudice of Reynaldo Solis in the aforementioned total amount of P50,000.00.
The evidence for the prosecution disclose that on May 17, 1996, accused Virginia Baby P. Montaner, in exchange for cash, issued to private complainant Reynaldo Solis in his house at Caliraya Street, Holiday Homes, San Pedro, Laguna, ten (10) Prudential Bank checks, specifically, check nos. 0002284, 0002285, 0002286, 0002287, 0002288, 0002289, 0002290, 0002291, 0002292, and 0002293 all postdated June 17, 1996, each in the amount of P5,000.00 all in the total amount of P50,000.00. Accused represented to complainant Solis that the checks were fully funded. When private complainant deposited the checks for encashment however, they were dishonored for the reason "account closed". Private complainant verbally and thereafter, thru demand letter (Exhibit "A") formally demanded that accused settle her accounts. Despite receipt of the demand letter, accused Montaner failed to pay the value of the ten (10) checks, thus private complainant Reynaldo Solis filed the instant complaint for estafa. In connection with this complaint, private complainant Solis executed a sworn statement (Exhibit "D").
Ruel Allan Pajarito, Branch Cashier O-I-C of Prudential Bank testified that they placed the mark "account closed" on the ten (10) checks issued in the account of accused Montaner considering that at the time the same were presented to them, the account of accused Montaner was already closed. Witness Pajarito further testified that as per their records, the account of accused Montaner, account no. 00099-000050-4 was closed on July 11, 1996. The checks were returned on October 4, 1996 for the reason account closed.
Accused, thru counsel initially manifested that she is intending to file a demurrer to evidence. However, her right to file the same was considered waived in view of her failure to file the demurrer despite due notice.
To exculpate herself from criminal liability, accused Virginia Baby P. Montaner denied the allegations that she issued ten (10) checks in private complainant's favor claiming that the ten (10) checks were borrowed from her by one Marlyn Galope because the latter needed money. She gave the ten checks to Galope, signed the same albeit the space for the date, amount and payee were left blank so that the checks cannot be used for any negotiation. She further told Galope that the checks were not funded. When she learned that a case was filed against her for estafa, she confronted Marlyn Galope and the latter told her that money will not be given to her if she will not issue the said checks. She has no knowledge of the notice of dishonor sent to her by private complainant and claimed that her husband, who supposedly received the notice of dishonor left for abroad in July 1996 and returned only after a year, that is, in 1997.5
WHEREFORE, this Court hereby sentences accused Virginia Baby P. Montaner to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum to twenty-two (22) years of reclusion perpetua as maximum and to indemnify complainant Reynaldo Solis in the amount of P50,000.00.6
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. Accordingly, the challenged Decision is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.7
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF ESTAFA UNDER ARTICLE 315, PAR. 2 (D) OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.8
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow x x x:
x x x x
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
x x x x
(d) By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.
From the circumstances narrated above, it was evident that Solis would not have given P50,000.00 cash to appellant had it not been for her issuance of the 10 Prudential Bank checks. These postdated checks were undoubtedly issued by appellant to induce Solis to part with his cash. However, when Solis attempted to encash them, they were all dishonored by the bank because the account was already closed.
[On Direct Examination] Q: Mr. Witness, why did you file this complaint against the accused? A: She issued me checks in exchange for cash, ten postdated checks, ma'am. Q: When did Mrs. Montaner issue to you these checks? A: In May 1996, ma'am. Q: What was the purpose of issuing to you these checks? A: Because she needed cash, ma'am. Q: And how many checks did she issue to you? A: Ten checks, ma'am. Q: And what is the date of the checks that were issued to you? A: June 17, 1996, ma'am. Q: What is the total value of these ten checks? A: Fifty Thousand Pesos. Q: At the time these checks were issued to you, what if any, was her representation about them? A: To deposit those checks on their due date, ma'am. Q: And aside from telling you to deposit those checks on their due date, what else did she represent to you regarding these checks? A: None, ma'am. Q: Did you deposit these checks? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: Where? A: At the Premier Bank, San Pedro, Laguna. Q: What happened to these checks after depositing the same? A: The checks bounced, ma'am. Q: All these checks? A: Yes, ma'am, all checks bounced for reason account closed. Q: After these checks were dishonored what did you do? A: I informed her about that. Q: Thru what, verbal or written? A: Initially it was verbal, then I informed her thru a demand letter, ma'am. x x x x Fiscal (continuing): Q: You said that the accused issued to you ten checks in exchange for cash, where are those checks? A. The original checks are with me here, ma'am. Q. Handed to this representation are checks, Prudential Bank checks Nos. 002284, 002285, 002286, 002287, 002288, 002289, 002290, 002291, 002292, 002293 all dated June 17, 1996 and all in the amount of P50,000 [should be P5,000.00] each. Mr. Witness, there appears from these checks a signature at the bottom portion whose signature is this? A. The signature of Mrs. Montaner, ma'am. Q. Why do you say it is her signature? A. She signed those in my presence, ma'am. Q. I am showing these checks to the opposing counsel for comparison... Atty. Peñala The checks are admitted, your Honor. x x x x [On Cross-Examination] Atty. Peñala (continuing): Q: When Mrs. Montaner issued those checks, ten checks were they issued in your house or in her house? A: In my house, sir. Q: Mrs. Montaner brought the checks in your house? A: Yes, sir. Q: Can you tell us the time of the day when she brought the checks to you? A: May 17, 1996 at 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon, sir. Q: Was she alone or including her husband? A: She was alone, sir.10
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, pp. 4-10; penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal with Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Jose C. Reyes, Jr., concurring.
2 CA rollo, pp. 19-22.
3 Records, pp. 1-2.
4 Id. at 37.
5 CA rollo, pp. 20-21.
6 Id. at 22.
7 Rollo, p. 10.
8 CA rollo, p. 87.
9 Cajigas v. People, G.R. No. 156541, February 23, 2009, 580 SCRA 54, 63.
10 TSN, November 25, 1998, pp. 4-8.
11 Records, p. 15.
12 People v. Garin, 476 Phil. 455, 474 (2004); People v. Samus, 437 Phil. 645, 659 (2002).
13 Gomba v. People, G.R. No. 150536, September 17, 2008, 565 SCRA 396, 400, citing People v. Magbanua, G.R. No. 133004, May 20, 2004, 428 SCRA 617, 630.
14 Records, p. 212.